beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) In fact, the lower court found Defendant A1 guilty of not guilty of aiding and abetting the Defendant B’s crime, such as the crime of 2018 High Order 336, but there was an error of mistake in the facts.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant B of the Prosecutor (three months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A 1) The lower court found Defendant A 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged in full view of each of the evidence in its judgment.
B) In light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant aiding and abetting the Defendant B as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment and deceiving the victim of money can be fully recognized.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
① The Defendant knew that he did not have sufficient means to repay the interest on the money he borrowed from B, with the payment of the interest on the money, etc., and was aware that B knew that he did not have sufficient means to repay the money, and that “I would like to use the victim of the money he would have to pay the money.” The Defendant knew that “I would like to use the victim of the money he would not live with the victim” (Article 409, 413 of the Investigation Record), and that B would have borrowed the money from the victim without the victim’s intention to live together with the victim.
② At the time of lending money to B, the Defendant, a person who introduced B to the victim, was able to obtain money from the former victim, and was able to commit the crime of B’s fraud by responding to the purport that “B shall be held liable if any event happens” (Article 390 pages of the investigation record). ③ The Defendant was 2.5 million won out of the date of receiving money from the victim (64, 392 pages of the investigation record).